Skip to content

Chiefs issue statement regarding lockout

clark-hunt--kansas-city-chiefs

As Rosenthal pointed out earlier today, every team has employed a different approach when it comes to commenting on the lockout.  Some have said nothing at all.  Others have issued statements through their owners.  Others have sent letters to the paying customers.

The Chiefs have issued a general statement, not attributed to any specific person or office within the organization.

“The Kansas City Chiefs still believe the fastest way to a fair agreement is through the mediation process,” the statement reads.  “While we are disappointed that the union walked away from the clubs’ offer to split the difference and meet them in the middle, we remain confident that we can and will reach a deal that is good for the game.”

We’ve heard the word “fair” plenty of times lately.  But “fair” is in the eye of the beholder.  A “fair” deal to the owners may not be a “fair” deal to the players, since it very well may be more “fair” to the owners than to the players.

“After a season that began with Monday Night Magic at the grand opening of the New Arrowhead, and culminated in a division championship, we are more focused than ever on improving every area of our team,” the statement continues. “We know there will be football in the future — and we have already started to plan for the 2011 season.  Our football staff is continuing its preparation for the NFL Draft and our business operations staff is using fan feedback to make the Arrowhead experience the best in the NFL.

“We have great respect for our fans and our season ticket holders, and are committed to communicating openly and directly with them as we work to reach a long-term agreement with the players that is fair to everyone who loves this game.”

We could have done without that last part.  The league and the union don’t care about being “fair” to anyone but themselves.  They don’t care about the fans.  They say that they do, but when it comes to doing this deal they really don’t.  If they did, their desire to avoid this mess would have pushed them toward getting a deal done.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
18 Responses to “Chiefs issue statement regarding lockout”
  1. alpod says: Mar 12, 2011 8:05 PM

    while we’re going through the AFC West, can we just skip the broncos and get to what Al has to say?

  2. raiderman41 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:08 PM

    The more I read about the owner’s offer, the more I am convinced that 1) the union planned to decertify all along and never bargained in good faith, and 2) the players wanted a BETTER deal than last time and were unwilling to budge on the money issue although the NFL has a number of stadiums that are crumbling around the fans’ feet. In other words, the players don’t want the owners to invest in the game, don’t care about player safety and retired players. They only care about how much money they receive NOW, and when the owners didn’t offer more in these challenging economic times, they took their football and went home. Sad for fans, indeed.

  3. skoobyfl says: Mar 12, 2011 8:21 PM

    Players offered to keep the same great deal for themselves 5 times, nice work.

  4. cdjones34 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:22 PM

    We could have done without that last part. The league and the union don’t care about being “fair” to anyone but themselves. They don’t care about the fans. They say that they do, but when it comes to doing this deal they really don’t. If they did, their desire to avoid this mess would have pushed them toward getting a deal done.

    AMEN!!!!!!

  5. mybuttsayspft says: Mar 12, 2011 8:23 PM

    Who the hell are the chiefs?

  6. t1mmy10 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:26 PM

    i’d love to see ONE person who apologizes to the fans without pointing the blame at someone else

  7. whatevnfl says: Mar 12, 2011 8:27 PM

    Do these arrogant people even realize how patronizing they are?? These statements are more irritating than reassuring.

  8. hawkjc1 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:35 PM

    They are very good at saying they care about the fans, but they obviously care about their wallets more, how much is enough? it’s outrageous how much it costs to go to the games. It’s really sad that they don’t care enough about the fans that are giving them our hard earned money for them to play a game and have almost half a year off what a sweet job to have my job pays crap and I still scape enough money together to go to a few games a year

  9. mark0226 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:36 PM

    We also could have done without your last paragraph. The NFL “DID” push to get a deal done, but the NFLPA walked away from the table. The NFLPA’s opening offer was to change the formula for calculating the split, which essentially was to keep things status quo, which the league said is not feasible. The NFL came down from $1B to $650M, the NFLPA said NO. The NFL then split the difference from there and the NFLPA said NO. The NFLPA did not budge from their orginal position, while the NFL gave up 75% of their original position, and threw in just about everything else the NFLPA wanted, but that was not good enough. The only way the NFL could have pushed for a resolution was to cave on every single point. They had no choice to do what they did, no matter how much or how little they care about the fans.

  10. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Mar 12, 2011 8:36 PM

    The NFL has provided—and PFT has posted—a summary of its final proposal to the NFLPA. Has the former NFLPA provided the media with a summary of its final proposal or counter-proposal to the NFL? We certainly all know that about that NFLLockout.com (by the way, who or what is running that site?) summary re: why the NFL’s offer was unacceptable. But aren’t NFL fans entitled to a list of the NFLPA’s final proposals, concessions, or counter-proposals? Or is it simply the case that players’ only position has been, is now, and shall be going forward that they want to work under what was—until yesterday—the existing CBA?

    Of all the owners who have to date commented on the failed talks, the one who has made the most compelling point is New York Giants co-owner John Marra. Importantly, Marra noted, “I’ve been here for the better part of two weeks now. And essentially during that two-week period the union’s position on the core economic issues has not changed, one iota.” If that’s the sum and substance of the players’ concessions, then they haven’t made any. And that speaks volumes of their lack of commitment toward fashioning a compromise solution to ensure a 2011 NFL season.

  11. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 12, 2011 8:48 PM

    “We could have done without that last part. The league and the union don’t care about being “fair” to anyone but themselves. They don’t care about the fans. ”

    ——————————-

    Thats about the smartest and most accurate thing you have said in weeks Mike.

  12. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 12, 2011 10:28 PM

    mark0226 says: Mar 12, 2011 8:36 PM

    We also could have done without your last paragraph. The NFLPA’s opening offer was to change the formula for calculating the split, which essentially was to keep things status quo, which the league said is not feasible.

    ———————–

    And what was wrong with the status quo?

    Has the game become less popular since the last CBA? NO
    Have TV ratings fell? NO. They are sky high.
    Have the networks refused to pay record rights fees? NO
    Are teams playing to half full stadiums? NO
    Have revenues fallen? NO. They are at record highs.

    I could go on and on but you get the point. The NFLPA basically said “Why should we take less in these boom times for our game? Why should we take less when all appears to be well? HOWEVER, we will be open to the of possibly taking a cut if you can prove things are so bad. Step one–lets see the books.”

  13. thefiesty1 says: Mar 12, 2011 10:30 PM

    Where is Mr. Hunt when we need him?

  14. jodave5 says: Mar 12, 2011 10:37 PM

    26 year Chiefs season ticket holder (insert joke here)…wrote a letter several years ago to Uncle Carl (Peterson) where I coined the phrase “fans=necessary evil”. NFL owners/players couldn’t care less about us. F’em all…..

  15. theocb485 says: Mar 13, 2011 5:03 AM

    So mark0226 which team do you work for at a very very low level? Only 25 votes? Al Davis couldn’t click the right button and Jerry Jones hates you?

    I’m not saying the players are right but yours and RI Pats Fans are the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever seen.

    “which essentially was to keep things status quo, which the league said is not feasible”

    The league has experienced continued growth in a time when many businesses are failing, how is the status quo not “feasible”?

  16. bunjy96 says: Mar 13, 2011 9:10 AM

    theocb,

    Growth (revenue) has gone up. What you failed to mention was, expenses went up also.

    The owners are implying their profit margin has significantly dropped.

    In the real world, costs increase every year. Look at your own budget and tell me your costs are the same as 4 years ago, and that your income rose equally.
    I seriously doubt it.

    Look around where you live, how many empty houses do you see? How many people do you know who are unemployed because their company couldn’t afford to pay them?

    Get real.

  17. burntorangehorn says: Mar 13, 2011 10:37 AM

    thefiesty1 says:
    Mar 12, 2011 10:30 PM
    Where is Mr. Hunt when we need him?
    =================================
    Fortunately Clark Hunt is now the owner of the Chiefs, and Lamar is not. Lamar had become a below-average owner. Sure, he’s responsible for a lot of good things in the league over the years, but he absolutely mailed it in the last decade with Carl Peterson.

  18. mark0226 says: Mar 13, 2011 8:30 PM

    theocb485 says:

    The league has experienced continued growth in a time when many businesses are failing, how is the status quo not “feasible”?

    ——
    In the past, the league enjoyed the benefit of public funding for building stadiums. The last CBA was agreed upon under this financial model.

    With the recession, many governements are underwater and taxpayers are no longer willing to provide public funding for private enterprise. Look at Dallas and San Diego as examples of both extremes. Jerry Jones arranged private investment to build a $1B stadium. The Chargers can’t even get the city council to provide the land, let alone any public funding to build a new stadium.

    So, if the local taxpayers are not going to build new stadiums, where do you think the money is going to come from? The old business model (status quo) is no longer valid.

    Get it?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!